Ag preservation ordinance used for 1st time since adoption

Wednesday

Nov 27, 2013 at 12:01 AM

STOCKTON - The Board of Supervisors allowed a developer to pay a fee instead of providing an acre-for-acre swap to preserve 5 acres of lost farmland Tuesday, the first time a controversial agricultural-preservation ordinance was utilized since being adopted seven years ago.

Zachary K. Johnson

STOCKTON - The Board of Supervisors allowed a developer to pay a fee instead of providing an acre-for-acre swap to preserve 5 acres of lost farmland Tuesday, the first time a controversial agricultural-preservation ordinance was utilized since being adopted seven years ago.

County staff recommended Love's Travel Center be allowed to pay the $8,675-an-acre fee after unsuccessfully trying to buy land or an easement to preserve 5.06 acres of farmland to replace a piece of the approved 12-acre project to add a new truck stop in Flag City, where Highway 12 meets Interstate 5.

The board unanimously approved the fee payment, but it revived the debate from seven years ago when the ordinance was adopted to keep growth from eroding agricultural land in the county. And supervisors said they wanted to take a closer look at how the farm-preservation rules are used, but they stopped short of calling for an overhaul.

The $43,895 fee will still go toward farmland preservation, likely through the Central Valley Farmland Trust. It is difficult to purchase 5-acre easements, and the trust typically deals with larger tracts of land, county officials said.

"It doesn't make any sense if you're looking at small parcels like this if you can't find the exact fit," Supervisor Larry Ruhstaller said. "The thing to do is give the money to something like the Central Valley Farmland Trust."

The unsuccessful search did take months, said Kevin Huber, who represents Love's. "It's very difficult unless you're looking in small ranchette areas," which are not ideal areas for farming operations, he said.

The opportunities are there for the buyer who is looking for them, said Bruce Blodgett, executive director of the San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation, which lobbies for agriculture in the county. Paying a fee instead of finding an easement moves the responsibility from the developer to the county, he said. Most of the projects in the unincorporated county are smaller than 40 acres, he said. And the fees don't match reality, he said. "Fair market value has gone up for these easements," he said. "Allow the market system to work."

But the market demand was created by the ordinance, said John Beckman, CEO of the Building Industry Association of the Delta, a lobbying group for developers. "That interferes with the philosophy of supply and demand."

The builders group was part of a lawsuit brought against the city of Stockton's agriculture-mitigation plan in 2007.

Developers, farmers and environmentalists were part of the discussion in the lead-up to the county ordinance, Community Development Director Kerry Sullivan said. And the board at the time expressed great concern about pressure on farmland and the threat of urbanization, she said.

Since 2006, there have been few requests subject to the mitigation ordinance, and this is the first request for the fee option. But when the county finishes updating its General Plan, there could be many new landowners subject to the ordinance, Sullivan said.

The county should always be sensitive when fees are involved, but this is the first time they've come up with the mitigation rules since 2006, Supervisor Steve Bestolarides said. "I don't think the ordinance needs to be revisited."

Board Chairman Ken Vogel said he didn't necessarily want to reopen the ordinance, "but I think we need to get a little bit better idea about what is going on."

He did note that the flagging economy of recent years is one reason the board hasn't dealt with as many development issues.